This is an online space to extend our EDUS 702 intellectual community...
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
February 14…Philosophy of Ed. Research: The Basics
Upon completion of Chapters 1 and 2 the Paul text, do you (and if so, how?) see this book as potentially contributing to the “foundation” supporting your understandings of educational research and doctoral studies in general?
I do think understanding the foundational philosophical underpinnings of the field will be useful. I definitely think this is the case in my understanding of educational research and extends to my doctoral studies. I know very little about the traditions that inform our current place in history. In reading about the philosophers I was taken back to my philosophy classes but the connective tissue has eroded over time. One of the items that resonates with me deeply is the idea of truth and how 'knowable' truth is. I use the example of a car accident. If twenty people witness a car accident you may get twenty very different 'versions of reality' but does that mean that twenty different accidents happened? I don't think so. I think one accident happened in one way and that way is knowable. One of the aspects of behaviorism that draws me in is the idea that behavior is lawful in the same way that the movement of the planets is lawful and in the same way it is 'knowable'. I do not think that human beings are special or separate from the rest of the universe. I'm not sure, at present, which philosophical camp that puts me in but it is something I need to understand. As deeply as I'm influenced by the principles of behavior, I am as influenced by the gains we are making in the neurosciences. My understanding is we are reducing the space for 'self' and 'agency' and moving closer to a deterministic/pure behaviorism model. What does this mean? It means I believe in answers to questions and that not all answers are created equal. I think that is one of the 'unintended consequences' of postmodern thought, this idea that, "Just because I think it then it has the same level of truth as anything anyone else think." The hallmark of this type of thinking is prevalent in the growing hostility to 'science' and 'knowledge' that we see. People will gellfully believe that a chimpanzee nailed to a piece of wood 2000 years ago is the son of god but 'instinctively' resist the evidence for evolution.
I do think understanding the foundational philosophical underpinnings of the field will be useful. I definitely think this is the case in my understanding of educational research and extends to my doctoral studies. I know very little about the traditions that inform our current place in history. In reading about the philosophers I was taken back to my philosophy classes but the connective tissue has eroded over time. One of the items that resonates with me deeply is the idea of truth and how 'knowable' truth is. I use the example of a car accident. If twenty people witness a car accident you may get twenty very different 'versions of reality' but does that mean that twenty different accidents happened? I don't think so. I think one accident happened in one way and that way is knowable. One of the aspects of behaviorism that draws me in is the idea that behavior is lawful in the same way that the movement of the planets is lawful and in the same way it is 'knowable'. I do not think that human beings are special or separate from the rest of the universe. I'm not sure, at present, which philosophical camp that puts me in but it is something I need to understand. As deeply as I'm influenced by the principles of behavior, I am as influenced by the gains we are making in the neurosciences. My understanding is we are reducing the space for 'self' and 'agency' and moving closer to a deterministic/pure behaviorism model.
ReplyDeleteWhat does this mean? It means I believe in answers to questions and that not all answers are created equal. I think that is one of the 'unintended consequences' of postmodern thought, this idea that, "Just because I think it then it has the same level of truth as anything anyone else think." The hallmark of this type of thinking is prevalent in the growing hostility to 'science' and 'knowledge' that we see. People will gellfully believe that a chimpanzee nailed to a piece of wood 2000 years ago is the son of god but 'instinctively' resist the evidence for evolution.
Can't wait for class tonight:)